The election is coming up in a matter of months (it will be here before you know it) and I realised: gosh darnit, I'm not going to get to vote this year.
So, here's the question: do you think that the right to vote should be limited to certain aged individuals? Should the age limit be raised? Lowered?
but what do you guys think of the idea that elder people will lose right to vote. for 2 reasons. when you get older (say 75+) you are less busy whit what is actualy going on in the world. the world get's smaller and smaller they say. and because elder people are used to often forget the most easy things. they are unable to keep up whit politics anymore.
Quite frankly, I think that's a stupid idea. You're stereotyping "old people" as all being forgetful, out of the times, and stuck on old notions.
In an ideal world, there would be a fair way to determine if someone was competent to have their opinion matter on matters of government. Since this isn't an ideal world, the best we can do is allow everyone to voice their opinion, and hope beyond hope that the majority's opinion is the right one.
In an ideal world, there would be a fair way to determine if someone was competent to have their opinion matter on matters of government. Since this isn't an ideal world, the best we can do is allow everyone to voice their opinion, and hope beyond hope that the majority's opinion is the right one.
Well, if we are going to allow everyone to vote, than how about we determine how "weighted" that vote is. If you study the issues, and are comprehensive in the issues, you should be given two or three votes. If you're a ******* who lounges about all day and watches nothing but attack ads, you'd get one vote.
Well, if we are going to allow everyone to vote, than how about we determine how "weighted" that vote is. If you study the issues, and are comprehensive in the issues, you should be given two or three votes. If you're a ******* who lounges about all day and watches nothing but attack ads, you'd get one vote.
And who are we to determine that my voice is more important than you? What gives you the right to decide?
There will always be more informed voters, and voters that vote irresponsibly. Democracy is as such, it's deeply flawed, but as Churchill said,
''Many forms of Government have been tried and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.''
Having 18 as the minimum age acts as a very vague blanket, the best the government can do. It acts as a cut off point.
I find it strange you complain that an uneducated 30 year old can vote, but not an informed under 18 year old; yet you espouse giving a test to people to sieve out the politically inclined.
but what do you guys think of the idea that elder people will lose right to vote. for 2 reasons. when you get older (say 75+) you are less busy whit what is actualy going on in the world. the world get's smaller and smaller they say. and because elder people are used to often forget the most easy things. they are unable to keep up whit politics anymore.
I think the former is a stereotype. My older relatives all keep up to date with the news, and sometimes much more than I do.
As for the elderly losing mental capability, I think it's under the umbrella of mentally challenged people voting. It depends on state to state if I'm not wrong. Take Kansas as an example.
And who are we to determine that my voice is more important than you? What gives you the right to decide?
Exactly, that would give politicians even more room for manipulation than would uninformed votes do.
Anyway I believe that it does not matter a lot how informed people are. If many are uninformed, politicians just manipulate very easily. When a lot of people are informed, they get manipulated just as much, simply on different levels and much more sneakily.
Other point, if you complain that people are uninformed, I have one question to you: instead of making stupid tests and giving politicians even more room to play on, why not simply actually try to solve the problem and inform people?
Lastly, as I already said, I am strongly against limitation of the right of voting; it was not too long ago that women could not vote, only because men thought that women couldn't make the right political decisions. What you want to achieve with your test is exactly the same simply not restricted to gender. This cannot be.
Other point, if you complain that people are uninformed, I have one question to you: instead of making stupid tests and giving politicians even more room to play on, why not simply actually try to solve the problem and inform people?
Exactly. Ever considered the fact that some bummers really just don't give a penny's worth?
A democracy is no longer a democracy if you're going to tell me my vote is somehow more valuable because I understand the nuclear parity issue better than my neighbour, or that he cannot vote because he cannot grasp the importance of quantitative easing.
Why should your views even be considered when you're not legal to make full legal contracts, work in the military, serve on a jury? Why should a minor's views even be considered? Although it's not a magic line whereby one becomes immediately mature after 18, it's a rough guideline that makes it fair for everyone. Take away that, and allow people below a certain age who pass a test to vote, and you destroy the very essence of what a democracy stands for.
Because while one might not be able to serve in the military, not be able to enter contracts without parental approval, or serve in judgment of their peers, the issues that are decided in the next four years will affect me as much as any American. Why shouldn't I have the right to at least have a small say in how these issues are decided. I hear all of this crap about how "this generation it the future" but if you don't give "the future" a voice, than is it really their's?
Take away that, and allow people below a certain age who pass a test to vote, and you destroy the very essence of what a democracy stands for.
Nice rhetoric. It's funny because while it wouldn't limit the rights of any if this test was given, it would expand on the rights of the younger. Did you know that if you are below 18 than you only have the rights granted to you by the Constitution? You don't have any privacy rights (except from your school in certain cases), no rights to even any money! If the youth of this country aren't given a voice, than who's to say that the politicians up in DC aren't going to screw things up more!
the issues that are decided in the next four years will affect me as much as any American. Why shouldn't I have the right to at least have a small say in how these issues are decided. I hear all of this crap about how "this generation it the future" but if you don't give "the future" a voice, than is it really their's?
Should we then give 12 year olds the vote since school policies affect them? Or that health policies affect toddlers so the three year old in the crib next door should have the vote too?
Nice rhetoric. It's funny because while it wouldn't limit the rights of any if this test was given, it would expand on the rights of the younger. Did you know that if you are below 18 than you only have the rights granted to you by the Constitution? You don't have any privacy rights (except from your school in certain cases), no rights to even any money! If the youth of this country aren't given a voice, than who's to say that the politicians up in DC aren't going to screw things up more!
It limits equality. By stating that a test is a deciding factor and that if you pass it, you can vote, if not you can't, is going to be discriminatory and perpetuate inequality since voting is supposed to be allowed for anyone, barring exceptions, above the age of 18.
. Did you know that if you are below 18 than you only have the rights granted to you by the Constitution?
Yes. And so?
If the youth of this country aren't given a voice, than who's to say that the politicians up in DC aren't going to screw things up more!
So now you're saying if we don't give youths (anyone below 18), the vote, the politicians will screw up more? I fail to see how; if people below 18 are given the vote, that will lead to even more screw ups. Either way, it's already a headache having to listen to an electorate over 18, give that right to a sixteen year old, and it gets worse.
Also, what has privacy rights got to do with voting rights? Are you desperately clinging on to redundant pieces of evidence to cloud your argument? Or the right to have money? How is that even linked to the idea of voting rights?
Again, like your other posts, I would suggest more thinking going in, instead of using reasons that sound nice, but are hollow and irrelevant.
Should we then give 12 year olds the vote since school policies affect them?
No, because than those 12 year olds will overrule the rules that are there for their own safety.
It limits equality
Fine, forget my post above where I said that a vote should be weighted. I revert to my original argument about how the test should be given to those over 14. This wouldn't limit equality, it would allow those ready to vote, to vote.
Also, what has privacy rights got to do with voting rights? Are you desperately clinging on to redundant pieces of evidence to cloud your argument? Or the right to have money? How is that even linked to the idea of voting rights?
I'm saying that the amounts children are afforded is so scarce as it is, than we don't really have the right to speak out.
No, because than those 12 year olds will overrule the rules that are there for their own safety.
School-policies, not school rules. I.e, more funding for such and such schools, not whether gum chewing constitutes detention.
I revert to my original argument about how the test should be given to those over 14
So why the magical age of 14 now? Why? You know full well that the number of 14 year olds being immature jerks is a higher proportion than any group above 18.
I'm saying that the amounts children are afforded is so scarce as it is, than we don't really have the right to speak out.
Afforded what? Speak out for? Why should you bother yourself with politics at such an age even when it affects you? You're still under the custody of your parents/guardians who will make the informed decisions on how to care for you.
I am not for the limitation of voting. I'm for the expanding of the right of voting.
You don't even realize that expanding the right of voting of a selected few is still a limitation of the right of voting to all others, don't you? Didn't history teach us better than that?
Fine, forget my post above where I said that a vote should be weighted. I revert to my original argument about how the test should be given to those over 14. This wouldn't limit equality, it would allow those ready to vote, to vote.
It's still a limitation no matter how well you wrap it into nice words. You can't compare political opinions to the street/driving code. Such tests would do more bad than good, considering in which hands they could fall.
